Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00267)

Initially when I posted my comments, I did not
know which of these 2 boards you were currently
reading, so I posted my comments to both.

Since then since you have also posted followup 
comments to both boards, I have also done so in case
readers on either boards were also interested
in the followup posts.

Daniel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> Why are you duplicating this dialogue on at least two discussion 
boards? 
> 
> --j
> 
> Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:
> 
> >Dear Jerry,
> >
> >Thanks for your futher comments below.
> >
> >Let me once again quote your original words:
> >
> > 
> >
> >>>>>"I think you will be very interested in the 
> >>>>>October [2004] issue of Theosophical History, which 
> >>>>>should be going into the mail in the next
> >>>>>week or so. Pat Deveney has a fascinating 
> >>>>>article on A.L. Rawson, whose testimony has 
> >>>>>been used to prove some things about HPB, 
> >>>>>while other statements of his have been 
> >>>>>ignored when they were --let us
> >>>>>say--inconvient to the party-line 
> >>>>>version of history. With giving away
> >>>>>the article, just let me say that Mr. 
> >>>>>Deveney has dug us some real surprises 
> >>>>>which am sure that certain Theosophical 
> >>>>>apologists who pose as
> >>>>>historians will have to explain away."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>
> >
> >Now let me quote your latest words about
> >the Deveney comments of yours:
> >
> >"....it was a rhetorical statement written 
> >in context to the subject of communicating 
> >Theosophy to a post modern generation. In 
> >that context, it is self explanatory and 
> >very tongue in cheek, as it reflects upon 
> >modernist verses post modernist attitudes. 
> >In context, the statement does not mean, nor 
> >was it intended to mean that Theosophical 
> >apologists have for some reason an obligation 
> >or compulsion to put forth an explanation--which, 
> >of course, is pure nonsense."
> >
> >I simply do not understand what you are trying to
> >tell us by calling your initial statement "a
> >rhetorical statement written in context...In that
> >context, it is self explanatory and very tongue in
> >cheek...."
> >
> >I have no idea exactly what you are trying to
> >tell me.
> >
> >All I was trying to ask you with my first posting
> >was in a general context, in your opinion are there
> >"surprises" in Deveney's article that pro-Blavatsky
> >students (Theosophical apologists???] might have
> >a problem with and therefore might try to discount
> >by explaining them away?
> >
> >And if there are such "surprises" I was wondering
> >what specific items of information you were thinking
> >of when you labelled them "surprises".
> >
> >What is my opinion of Deveney's article? Well,
> >certainly Mr. Deveney has done a great deal of
> >research into Rawson's life and claims. I would
> >think Deveney may be writing a full length
> >biography of Rawson considering the depth of
> >Deveney's research.
> >
> >Daniel
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
> >wrote:
> > 
> >
> >> Dan,
> >>As I said before, it was a rhetorical statement written in 
context 
> >> 
> >>
> >to 
> > 
> >
> >>the subject of communicating Theosophy to a post modern 
> >> 
> >>
> >generation. In 
> > 
> >
> >>that context, it is self explanatory and very tongue in cheek, as 
> >> 
> >>
> >it 
> > 
> >
> >>reflects upon modernist verses post modernist attitudes. In 
> >> 
> >>
> >context, the 
> > 
> >
> >>statement does not mean, nor was it intended to mean that 
> >> 
> >>
> >Theosophical 
> > 
> >
> >>apologists have for some reason an obligation or compulsion to 
put 
> >> 
> >>
> >forth 
> > 
> >
> >>an explanation--which, of course, is pure nonsense. There is an 
> >> 
> >>
> >old 
> > 
> >
> >>saying--"Context is everything" but getting a feel for the tone 
> >> 
> >>
> >helps 
> > 
> >
> >>too. 
> >>
> >>Now, to my question, which I ask you again: What are you 
thoughts 
> >> 
> >>
> >on 
> > 
> >
> >>Deveney's article?
> >>--j
> >>
> >>BTW, why are you writing identical messages to me on two 
different 
> >>discussion boards? This is silly.
> >>j
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>>Jerry,
> >>>
> >>>Thanks for your reply below but I am still
> >>>puzzled by your initial statement.
> >>>
> >>>Therefore I ask you again:
> >>>
> >>>Could you share with us your
> >>>thoughts as to why you
> >>>felt these "surprises" would
> >>>have to be explained away
> >>>by the Theosophical apologists?
> >>>
> >>>Daniel
> >>>http://hpb.cc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jjhe@c...> 
> >>>wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>Dan,
> >>>>
> >>>>First of all, I did not have you in mind when I used the phrase 
> >>>>"Theosophical apologists." 
> >>>>
> >>>>Second, the comment was in the context of a discussion I was 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >having 
> > 
> >
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>with 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>Dallas concerning modernist verses post modernist approaches 
to 
> >>>>communicating theosophy, and therefore the comment was 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >rhetorical. 
> > 
> >
> >>>>Regarding the article in TH, I was indeed surprised by some of 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >the 
> > 
> >
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>data 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>Deveney found in his research, and I believe that anyone 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >interested 
> > 
> >
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>in 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>Theosophical history will also be surprised. Were you not 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>surprised? 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>If you were already aware of everything that Deveney had 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>discovered 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>concerning Rawson, then you are way ahead of me, and ahead of 
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>Deveney 
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>>too. In any case, I would be interested in reading your 
comments 
> >>>>concerning the article. 
> >>>>--j
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Daniel H. Caldwell wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>>>Sometime ago, Jerry Hejka-Ekins wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"I think you will be very interested in the 
> >>>>>October [2004] issue of Theosophical History, which 
> >>>>>should be going into the mail in the next
> >>>>>week or so. Pat Deveney has a fascinating 
> >>>>>article on A.L. Rawson, whose testimony has 
> >>>>>been used to prove some things about HPB, 
> >>>>>while other statements of his have been 
> >>>>>ignored when they were --let us
> >>>>>say--inconvient to the party-line 
> >>>>>version of history. With giving away
> >>>>>the article, just let me say that Mr. 
> >>>>>Deveney has dug us some real surprises 
> >>>>>which am sure that certain Theosophical 
> >>>>>apologists who pose as
> >>>>>historians will have to explain away."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I have now read the Deveney article and though
> >>>>>
> >>>>>the article may contain "some real surprises", I 
> >>>>>
> >>>>>am somewhat puzzled why these "surprises" will
> >>>>>
> >>>>>have to be explained away by "certain Theosophical
> >>>>>
> >>>>>apologists who pose as historians."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It is unclear to me why these apologists would
> >>>>>
> >>>>>have to explain anything away as given in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>the Deveney article.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I am also puzzled why Jerry apparently
> >>>>>
> >>>>>felt the need to label certain unnamed
> >>>>>
> >>>>>individuals as "Theosophical
> >>>>>
> >>>>>apologists who pose as historians."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think we can safely assume that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Jerry does not consider himself
> >>>>>
> >>>>>as one of these Theosophical
> >>>>>
> >>>>>apologists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Maybe Jerry could share with
> >>>>>
> >>>>>us his thoughts as to why he
> >>>>>
> >>>>>felt these "surprises" would
> >>>>>
> >>>>>have to be explained away
> >>>>>
> >>>>>by the Theosophical apologists.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Daniel
> >>>>>http://hpb.cc
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>
> >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]